Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 13, 1980No. C.A.D. 1242; No. 79-19Published

1DissentMiller, Judge

The Customs Court concluded, as a matter of law, that appellee’s imported uppers are “not ornamented” and are properly classified under item 386.50, TSUS. This rested on its finding that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the stitching in question is “primarily functional” (i.e., utilitarian) and “not ornamental” (i.e., not decorative). On review, the ultimate question is whether the Customs Court’s conclusion of law is correct. However, the first question is whether there is substantial evidence that the stitching in question is primarily utilitarian.1 As will be explained…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Gregory v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. National Assn. of Railroad PassengersSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Blairmoor Knitwear Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  4. Baylis Bros. Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  5. The Baylis Brothers, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API